Author
Topic: [General Topic]: Two bodies vs One (Read 12505 times)

Hi,to cut a long story short: - after having started to use DSLRs five years ago with a used 5D classic, - I switched to a much more modern 70D, but then- I missed the full frame sensor, and since- the 6D Mark II was not available- I bought a used 6D.

For my recent trip to Australia, I planned to take my 70D as a mere backup body, but then ended to use both cameras: my neck was able to sustain a 70D with 70-200 F4 AND a 6D with 17-40 F/4 or 24-105 F/4. And the combo worked well! I didn't need to switch from a wide-angle lens to a tele in (sometimes) bad conditions.[Before I eliminate the duplicates and missed shots, I have about 800 70D pictures and 1,600 6D pictures].

Originally I thought that, if the 6D Mark II had a (reasonably) good autofocus + DPAF + articulated screen, I could buy it and replace BOTH the 6D and the 70D, but now I start to have doubts: maybe two is better than one (as long as my neck resist). BTW: I wonder if my neck could hold a heavier combo (i.e. 70D + 100-400mm AND 6D + ...).

What do you think, fellow friends from CanonRumors? If you expect to take pictures of (for example) wildlife + landscapes, do you take one camera with you (and switch lenses) or two cameras (keeping the second one in the backpack or not)?

To make it short: I'd recommend you to keep the 70D when you're going to replace your 6D.The type of usage then depends on the situation.

I do have two bodies, too. My personal preference is to only have one body with me, but I never did a "once in a lifetime" trip. I have FF for best IQ and a 100D/SL1 for travelling light. If I'd go to Australia I suppose I'd take both with me, but still just using the FF and having the other as backup.On a dusty safari trip I suppose I'd use both to avoid switching the lenses. But then I'd use something faster than the 100D.

Sometimes my better half uses one body while I shoot with the other at the same time.etc.

You have experience of going on a trip with two bodies so you are best placed to answer the question. It doesn't sound to me like you have to sell the 70D to fund the 6D2 (as and when it appears) so why not keep the 70D for a while and experiment with leaving the 70D at home a couple of times. If you think you will regularly be out in adverse conditions then having a second body makes sense.

I travel with a combination of different types of cameras - mirrorless, DSLR, medium format, leaf-shutter based, infrared, film...

But they all have different things that they excel in. Unless I had a particular professional need or was travelling to an inhospitable location, I don't really see much benefit in carrying two "similar" cameras. So if the 6D2 is as good as hoped, what does your 70D bring additionally to the table? In what circumstances would you opt to use it?

Of course, if carrying two cameras means that you aren't carrying a camera bag, then that's a good reason. But take it from someone with a history of back issues - minimising the amount of unnecessary gear that you carry is a good long term strategy.

Unless I had a particular professional need or was travelling to an inhospitable location, I don't really see much benefit in carrying two "similar" cameras. So if the 6D2 is as good as hoped, what does your 70D bring additionally to the table? In what circumstances would you opt to use it?

I take 2 cameras to avoid having to change lenses and to have 2 cameras at the ready: for example in a city it will be 6D with 24-105, 7D with 70-200. Wildlife it may be 7D2 with 400mm DO plus the 6D with 100-400. Or if I want to go a bit lighter, I may take the 7D2 with telephoto and MFT camera for wide angle (typically for landscape) and'or macro - even with both lenses it is barely bigger than my 24-105.

If I were doing purely landscape (which is rare for me) then I can see it no problem taking the time to change lenses.

...What do you think, fellow friends from CanonRumors? If you expect to take pictures of (for example) wildlife + landscapes, do you take one camera with you (and switch lenses) or two cameras (keeping the second one in the backpack or not)?

Nobody can really answer that question other than yourself. It's up to you. For travel, weight is an enormous consideration and generally you'll have to make compromises. Sometimes for travel I've taken just one FF body and a 24-105 f/4is zoom. It's been fun and it forced new creative choices and approaches compared to having the usual extensive kit available for commercial and personal projects while not traveling.

Personally I routinely use two bodies, typically one with 16-35 f4is or 24-70 f/2.8II and the 70-200 f/2.8isII on the other. That gives a great focal length range that is instantly available. Changing lenses does mean missed shots as that "magic moment" is often fleeting, plus it's not always wise to change lenses outdoors if the conditions are too wet, windy, dusty or sandy.

You mention weight on your neck. I now never hang cameras around my neck, it almost guarantees fatigue. Two Peak Design sling straps, one each side work perfectly, no neck pain and a much longer fatigue-free period. I can go all day on my feet with this setup.

Enjoy your trip. It's often more enjoyable if you're traveling light.

-pw

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

It sounds like your experience answers your own question. You thought the second camera would be the backup and you ended up using it quite a bit. If you are happy with these two camera, then there is no reason to change your set up. If you are happy with the results of your 6D, then there will really be no reason to upgrade to a 6D II. You will probably notice no difference in IQ.

When I bought a FF camera I was pretty disappointed when I realized that I needed a crop to get some of the same type of shots that I was used to getting. So having a FF and a crop is a good combo in my opinion.

I carry the DSLR and a waterproof P/S camera. The P/S takes decent pictures in good light, and when out in the rain, the salt spray is flying, or it gets awkward (kayak in waves for example) it is a far better choice than the big heavy camera.

I figure if you are going to carry two bodies, expand your possibilities instead of overlapping....

That said, for a big trip and worries about space, the M5 gives a great combo of quality and compactness. A 6D and an M5 could be the ultimate low cost combo for versatility.....

Keep both when you upgrade to the 6d2. 70d for wildlife and possibly macro. The original 6d slap a nifty fifty on it permanently or another low cost prime to work on creativity, and use the new camera as your main body.

I gave this a lot of thought when considering adding a 6D to my 7DII set up. No matter how I spun it, it was additional investment that my hobby could not justify. I was able to sell an unused tripod head, tomorrow the 7DII and 17-55 will be out he door, and a sale for the EFS 60 macro is pending. Over the weekend I'll be picking up a used 5Ds for a couple hundred in the difference. This solution is not for everyone, but I can cover all the focal lengths I used to without buying a general zoom for now, and I'm really excited about the 100-400 + 1.4x at the lake this summer having the crop and FF framing all built into one body and never taking the camera away from the eye.

The once in a life time trip comment is very valid though, but in that case my wife has the original M that will be fine as a back up if that scenario were to come up.

I've owned two ILCs for a few years, but I only use one at a time. I had a 7D, and added a 5DII for better IQ...but continued using the 7D for birds/wildlife. Then I got the 1D X, which combined the FF IQ and excellent AF in one camera, and I sold both the 5DII and 7D. I now have an EOS M2, and although I do take both on some trips, they are used independantly (e.g. the M2 for daytime walkaround with family and as a failure backup for the 1D X, the 1D X for blue hour shooting).

Only OP can decide for himself, yet I'm surprised no one has mentioned weather sealing. That's a big concern for me (may have to do with my luck with sunny weather?!). I'd for sure want two bodies if neither was well sealed. Of course there are no guarantees with any bodies other than waterproof action cameras, but clearly some bodies/lenses are better than others. I'd take a 7DII over a 70D. No first hand experience with the 6D, but have never heard of it being particularly well sealed. Likely 6DII will be better though.

Obviously I take two bodies when I'm doing paid stuff, but I still like to have two bodies even when doing landscapes and such for pleasure:

In harsh conditions it's great not to have to change lenses.

It's wonderful to be able to set up one body on the tripod with filters etc. in wait for a specific shot, but still be able to have the other camera in hand to wander about and try different angles with a different lens. I've got some good shots that way.